Appeals Court Refuses to Transfer Padilla

Associated Press ^ | December 21, 2005 | Toni Locy

[AntiGuv]

WASHINGTON - In a sharp rebuke, a federal appeals court denied Wednesday a Bush administration request to transfer terrorism suspect Jose Padilla from military to civilian law enforcement custody.

The three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused the administration's request to vacate a September ruling that gave President Bush wide authority to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without charges on U.S. soil.

The decision, written by Judge Michael Luttig, questioned why the administration used one set of facts before the court for 3 1/2 years to justify holding Padilla without charges but used another set to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last month.

Luttig said the administration has risked its "credibility before the courts" by appearing to use the indictment of Padilla to thwart an appeal of the appeals court's decision that gave the president wide berth in holding enemy combatants.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport as he returned to the United States from Afghanistan. Justice and Defense Department officials alleged Padilla had come home to carry out an al-Qaida backed plot to blow up apartment buildings in New York, Washington or Florida.

[ndt]

"Where to you get that?"

Two places

1 - my laymen understanding of the law which you are free and encouraged to question.

2- The reaction of the administration. If it was legal, WHY would they back down from the SCOTUS?

Obviously I am not the ultimate arbitrator of these things

[clawrence3]

I would support rendition of Mr. Padilla if that's the case.

[ndt]

"ood to have you aboard though"

Didn't say I agreed either, It was just never asked. :)

[jwalsh07]

Luttig ruled for Bush's position that Padilla is an enemy combatant and thus can be held by the military indefinitely.

Then the Bush Administration decided to try Padilla in a civilian court. Luttig is having none of that. I don't blame him since the Bush Administration supplied evidence and arguments attesting to Padillas status as an enemy combatant.

The risks are high that Padilla will never see the inside of a prison and that SCOTUS will overrule Luttig and friends which is why the Bush administration backed down and sought to change Padillas status.

[ndt]

"nope, no difference according to your strict interpetation. a US citizens rights extends to anywhere he is"

Not true, taking up arms in a foreign military can lose you your citizenship. If you have a passport read through it some time, it's in there (or at least used to be) :)

[clawrence3]

Then, perhaps, Judge Luttig should have gone along with the Solicitor General on this one too?

[clawrence3]

Fine - whatever you say.

[connectthedots]

I guess that Bush is pretty happy right now that he picked Alito, and not Luttig, for the Supreme Court.....

What the DoJ was trying to do was so indefensible, it wouldn't make any difference who heard the case. A party cannot take one position in a case and then take the complete opposite in another. It's called collateral estoppel.

[clawrence3]

Have you even read the Luttig opinion?! He stated very clearly that the government's two positions are NOT mutually exclusive.

[Agrarian]

And you would admire Luttig more if he had agreed with the administration's argument that Padilla was an enemy combatant, and then turned around and overturned his own decision by agreeing with the administrations new argument that he wasn't an enemy combatant and should be tried in the civil courts?

I.e. you would admire Luttig more if he took a results-oriented approach to the law? Sounds like you would get along just fine with Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, et al, who decide first what result they want, and then go backwards to concoct legal justifications for that result.

If you want results-oriented approaches, don't bother with the charade of using the courts...

[jwalsh07]

Perhaps, I think you could argue it either way. But I agree with Luttig. The government made a solid case that Padilla is an enemy combatant who bore arms in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda.

Thats the story and in my view they should have stuck to it and seen it through. At worse, SCOTUS rules against them. Padilla can still be tried. And if the American people are dissatisfied with the outcome, Congress can pass laws regarding citizens who make war on Americans on the battlefield of New York or Afghanistan.

Personnally, I don't think it's necessary. Consider this. A group of citizens joins Al Qaeda. They make war on America. If they are simply criminals they can not be shot on sight. They have to be Mirandized and taken with minimal force. They then get court appointed attorneys paid for by loyal citizens. It's ridiculous.

And now consider this non hypothetical. An American citizen known to be in a car in the Sudan with fellow jihadists was killed by CIA guys firing a missile from a drone. According to the argument that he was a US citizen not engaged in direct conflict and thus a criminal entitled to rights, they committed murder. You think the SCOTUS will address that? I don't. So, one of two things is true. the rights of American citizens are dependent on geography or somebody is FOS.

[Valpal1]

It is the courts who are ditching the constitution or more correctly interpreting it as a suicide pact.

GWB isn't el presidente for life and is subject to impeachment by Congress should they feel he is in fact abusing his powers under the guise of national security.

Plain and simple, the courts should butt out, because we elect our leaders and can remove them and replace them at will. Once again, the courts are gathering power and authority to themselves and inserting themselves into politics as representatives and protectors of our rights.

It's bull squeeze. From the very beginning the courts should have shoved this question back at congress, saying the courts have no jurisdiction and if congress wants to do something about it, then congress should get busy.

I am praying that Scalia gets a clue and a dose of humility.

[xzins]

I would have admired Luttig more if he'd said, "This is executive branch execution of a war. The courts are out of their turf."

The administration can argue anyway they want, they can do handstands, because this case shouldn't be in the courts in the first place.

And that's what Luttig should be bright enough to see.

[connectthedots]

He was just trying to be nice. Read between the lines.

[A CA Guy]

There have been ties of gangs getting terrorists into the country as go-betweens. Could have been like that and I hear that Mexican gangs are trying to get terrorists into the USA for the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ as well.

Don't know if it was to blow up some building, that could be, or could not be. Same for my possibility as well.

[XEHRpa]

> I would support rendition of Mr. Padilla if that's the case.

"Rendition?" I'm not a lawyer. What is that? Rendering as unto pork rinds?

[Torie]

That about says it all. This lawyer agrees with you, FWIW. :)

[Sandy]

The federal treason law was not meant for attacks like these. It was directed towards what may be termed political treason. I don't mean that it would never apply to attacks on property of structures of the federal government

I'm really thinking of treason in the "adhering to the enemy" sense rather than in the "levying war" sense. *Planning* to levy war (or *planning* to set off a dirty bomb or fly a plane into a building) wouldn't be considered as *actually* levying war, so it couldn't Constitutionally be considered treason.

[ndt]

"It is the courts who are ditching the constitution or more correctly interpreting it as a suicide pact. "

What does that mean "suicide pact"?

"Plain and simple, the courts should butt out, because we elect our leaders and can remove them and replace them at will."

The courts should but out of the determination of constitutional issues? Thats a very novel interpretation of the Constitution. That's what they do. They were giving that power and responsibility by the same document that gives the president and congress theirs.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

"It's bull squeeze."

I'm not sure what that is and it's probably better that way.

"From the very beginning the courts should have shoved this question back at congress, saying the courts have no jurisdiction and if congress wants to do something about it, then congress should get busy. "

The courts absolutely have jurisdiction. If the law is misguided, there is a process, Congress can change it.

[oceanview]

al qaeda is a foreign military, and Padilla was a "member". he may not have been on a battle field in Afghanistan with them, but what difference does that make.